Hot answers tagged

10

The Tetragram in Hebrew is a proper name, and names do not have articles in Hebrew any more than they do in English. The article "the" arises in OP's KJV example because of the convention (beginning as early as the Septuagint) of representing the divine name by the word "Lord", which then has the knock on effect of requiring an article in English usage. ...


10

The translation of Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is certainly "the revelation of Jesus Christ." The real question is whether the genitive phrase should be understood as a subjective genitive or objective genitive. Subjective genitive: "the revelation of Jesus Christ" (ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) is understood as "what Jesus Christ reveals" (ὃ ἀποκαλύπτει ὁ Ἰησοῦς ...


9

The verse: πρὸς ὃ δύνασθε ἀναγινώσκοντες νοῆσαι τὴν σύνεσίν μου ἐν τῷ μυστηρίῳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ. When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ.(ESV) [With reference] to which, reading, you are able to know...(my overly literal rendition) Indeed, ὃ is the object of the preposition. That’s a relative pronoun, here declined ...


7

The differences between and the new believers were prepared for eternal life (OP) and and all who were appointed for eternal life believed (NIV) are the flip-flopping of the finite verb and the participle and the translation of τεταγμένοι as “prepared” or “were appointed”. Although I understand how the OP arrived at this translation given ...


7

The Ark (Heb. אָרוֹן) was known as "the Ark of the testimony" (אֲרוֹן הָעֵדֻת cp. Exo. 25:22) and "the Ark of the covenant" (אֲרוֹן הַבְּרִית cp. Jos. 3:6) (among other things) since the two stone tablets contained therein were known as "the two tablets of the testimony" (שְׁנֵי לֻחֹת הָעֵדֻת; cp. Exo. 31:18) and "the two tablets of the covenant" (שְׁנֵי ...


7

It's probably αὐτὴν, as the modern critical editions have it. The witnesses The genitive pronoun αυτης is found (among consistently cited witnesses) only in the 4th-6th Century "correction" of Sinaiticus and the f1 group of miniscules ("Lake Group") from the 12th Century. The original (fourth C.) Sinaiticus and 𝔓64/67 omit the pronoun, a reading ...


6

It is true that the "anarthrous" usage of "Jesus" (Ἰησοῦς) in Mark 1:9 is unusual. Of 82 occurrences of the name in Mark, only eight of them lack the article (1:1, 9, 24; 5:7; 10:47[x2]; 16:6, 19). There is something of a pattern, though, as aside from 1:1, 9; and 16:19 (which is in the disputed "long ending" of Mark), these occur with an epithet, not a ...


6

I think the answer to your question is very simple: in verse 31 Jesus is referring to the disciples as a whole (ὑμᾶς, “you” plural), while in verse 32 he is addressing Simon/Peter (σύ, “thou” singular). You are aware, I trust, that in KJV the words “to have”, and the second “you” (in “to sift you as wheat”) are printed in italics, indicating that they are ...


5

It is hard to know how else to translate this idiomatically in English otherwise. Even sticking with the MT, the verb sequence makes it clear that 2:10-14 is an "offline" digression describing the one-into-four river (a bit unnatural, that). The "waw consecutives" (or past narratives or whatever you want to call them) make a continuous sequence, bracketing ...


5

I will limit my comments to the question is the “inclusive” reading of οἱ δὲ grammatically impossible rather than merely improbable which is the majority view: Stephanie Black objects to Grayston's approach, observing that οἱ δὲ signals discontinuity and would be highly unlikely if there were continuity of subject with the previous sentence. (Stephanie ...


5

Partitive or Switched Subject is Nearly Certain as Correct K. Grayston makes an argument for the inclusive view,1 but is challenged by both K. L. McKay's brief reply,2 and P.W. van der Horst's more lengthy reply,3 both upholding a partitive view. Grayston argues the inclusive view largely upon two points. First, the inclusive is the case in the primary ...


5

The OP requests clarification about why the English is not: ?For God so loved the world, that he gave the only son.... What is the meaning of this English, and does it accurately convey the Greek? To me, this construction is questionably intelligible. It seems to imply that there was never another son (of anyone), which is patently false, causing me ...


5

Strictly speaking, Shua (Judah's wife) does not “תסף” Shelah as this isn't a verb which takes an object. This verb (root ysp) is a verb which means "add", or "continue", often in the company of the adverb עוד "again" as quoted above.1 It is a fairly common Hebrew idiom (see Gesenius-Kautzsch-Cowley §120d) for continuing a sequence of repeated actions. ...


5

The considerations here are much the same as those I discussed in a previous answer. I have attempted to develop those ideas and tailor it to the passage in question. [I]s it incorrect to read this clause as "love is God"? Yes, it is. In Greek, the subject of a clause can generally be identified as the substantive in the nominative case. However, ...


4

The articular infinitive is fun, isn’t it? This may be the most common construction in the Koine Greek that is has no real English equivalent. I’m a little confused about the way the sentence was parsed by your friends in the first paragraph, but I’ll explain it as I understand it and perhaps that will be helpful. The verse: καὶ νῦν δόξασόν με σύ, ...


4

In my opinion no. The sentence remains the same in translation to the English. In regards to reading Koine Greek generally some folk might say that a certain word order departs from the standard and is therefore "emphatic", but in my opinion this can be very subjective and runs the danger of reading things into the text never meant by the author and I don't ...


4

Susan's answer addresses most of the grammar details perfectly, so I'll leave all that aside and focus on what seems to be the central question: does "τεταγμένοι" mean "having been appointed" or "having been organized"? First, let's consider the conundrum you're in: you have a lexicon or two that say the meaning may be "arrange" or it may be "appoint" (and ...


3

A recent discussion of this whole complex can be found in a lecture on "The Etymology of ‘Sabbath’", which included the following suggestion: “It seems possible that σάββατα is in fact a borrowing of the Old Aramaic singular noun in the determined state *šabbatā (Middle Aramaic: šabbṯā), which Greek speakers subsequently reinterpreted as a neuter plural and ...


3

I think it has to do with narrative continuity between verses. The basic idea is that on first mention of the birth of a new character, the prepositional phrase "to Jacob" is elevated to the position immediately following the verb in order to "front" the connection with the prior narrative and delay mention of the new character in the narrative — the ...


2

My persuasion is that the Masoret (with mitigated revision due from Dead Sea Scrolls) is the only biblically authoritative text for the books Genesis to Malakhi. It is a mistake and even pointless to think about English/Latin grammatical concepts in order to accurately resolve the actual intention of the Hebrew text. To map Hebrew grammatical elements to ...


2

Your analysis is correct, and the following grammar citation provides the grammatical explanation to answer your remaining questions. Please click to enlarge. Thus the "splitting" of the clause with attributives (inserted in the middle of the sentence) is normal in Greek. Such "splitting" would not be typical in English.


2

Among traditional Jewish Scholars there is a dispute about this verse. Onkelos (the aramaic translator of the Pentateuch) translates the verse to mean "when my people were led astray after gods I was forced to leave my fathers house" (וַהֲוָה כַּד טָעוּ עַמְמַיָּא בָּתַר עוֹבָדֵי יְדֵיהוֹן יָתִי קָרִיב יְיָ לְדַחַלְתֵּהּ מִבֵּית אַבָּא). Other scholars, such ...


2

The first instance, being in the perfect tense, indicates a completed past action with present results. The second instance, being in the imperfect, indicates a progressive or continuous past action. If the author of Hebrews was writing a translation of the KJV, then he should have used the same tense, possibly the aorist, but that's not the situation. ...


2

The most that can be said -- from the perspective of a non-scholar, as I am, who can only study the scholars -- is that a number of competent scholars make a case for translations that differ from Holmstedt's. As to some of the discussion from those who have written above: The idea of a "period" of creation is implied in the context for any translator. The ...


2

The kaf is the third radical (i.e., part of the root), not part of the suffix. The word of interest is אֽוֹלִיכֵם. This is a hifil imperfect first common singular* from הלך with a third masculine plural suffix, tsere-mem. (The he is not generally part of the 3mp suffix on imperfect forms.) The un-suffixed form ends in a kaf: אוֹלִיךְ. I will make them ...


2

As I said in the comments, the dictionary (LSJ) suggests that this is a matter of changing usage. Originally, ἐπιθυμέω took the genitive for its direct object, but in later antiquity we also see the accusative used in this role. So grammatically speaking, there wouldn't be any difference, and the variant αὐτὴν merely seems to reflect the change in usage ...


2

Challenges to Some of the Solutions Noted Idiom: Idioms have points to them; reasons they become idioms and a meaning adding distinction otherwise from a non-idiomatic statement. Here, there is nothing indicating the statement of the swarmers are to be taken in some idiomatic fashion. Simply saying "the swarmers" would have been sufficient. Poetic: There ...


1

Chapter one verse 1 of Revelation sums it up pretty well I think. The revelation is OF JESUS CHRIST, as given by God the father (see john 12:49) unto him (Jesus) to show us things which must shortly come to pass. So to me, this was a third heaven angel giving John a revelation, or revealing who Jesus is. Chapter 22:16 says this.


1

It looks as though the LXX (ἐκπορεύεται) and the Vulgata (egrediebatur) read the (obviously un-vocalised) יצא as 3rd sing. perfect. In the MT it is pointed as a participle, so if you are following the MT then yes, it would be more accurate to translate it in the present (“a river goes out”). Of course, the Tiberian pointing does not necessarily reflect the ...


1

Your difficulties in translating Genesis 22:8 and 22:14 are a result of insisting on a certain English translation which may not consistently capture the meaning of the entire passage. The verb ראה usually means "see" or something closely related to seeing. According to Strong's Concordance, the only instance where the verb ראה means "provide" other than ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible